Now, would Tommy be calling for a playoff if he wasn't on the outside looking in in 2004?I want a playoff. Unfortunately with the new TV deal with FOX, the earliest it would be possible would be after 2012, and even then the Presidents won't do it due to it impacting the 'Integrity of the Winter Recess, I mean School Year.'Now, I think the SEC is the best conference year in and year out in College Football, at least for the last decade. However, schedule a few less 1-AA non-conference games to build up the strength of schedule component. And, the SEC was the conference that began the Conference Re-allignments when they poked Arkansas from the Southwest Conference to go to 12 teams and then became the first conference to institute a playoff game for, wait for it, money. Get rid of the Conference Championship games and that is one less game the college president's can scream about the student-athletes participating in.Now, the 'Bloody Murder' scenario that will get some conference presidents to think about a playoff system that could occur this season is: Ohio State runs the table. The SEC beats the shit out of each other and no one survives unbeaten. Whoever wins the Louisville/West Virginia game goes unbeaten, but plays an inferior opponent in a close game. Then, USC is unbeaten going into the final game of the season against a 1 loss Notre Dame team. This is theoretical. Notre Dame then goes out to the Coliseum and hands USC a 49-10 loss on national TV on Thanksgiving weekend. Does anyone doubt for a second that under that scenario it would be Ohio State/Notre Dame for the national championship with an unbeaten Big East Champ left out in the cold? Before the screaming about Notre Dame will never do that to USC, as I said, it is theoretical. And, 'It makes no sense for that to happen' has never really mattered in college football before, so why would it start now?

Originally posted by redsoxnationNow, I think the SEC is the best conference year in and year out in College Football, at least for the last decade. However, schedule a few less 1-AA non-conference games to build up the strength of schedule component.

Ugh this is such a lame argument. So what if a SEC team plays one 1-AA team they STILL have a harder schedule even with that game so why the hell should it matter? Florida plays Georgia, FSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and LSU, but oooo they play WESTERN CAROLINA! Stop scheduling the easy games! Please. USC gets to feast on sucky Pac-10 teams every year and then play one or two tough non-conference games and the SEC is hurt because they play 5 or 6 really good teams but schedule two bad non-conference games. What a joke. Besides a game against a 1-AA team doesn't count towards the BCS so they're only playing a game against a 1-AA team if it's an extra 12th game so they still play as many 1-A teams as most teams.

Originally posted by redsoxnationNow, I think the SEC is the best conference year in and year out in College Football, at least for the last decade. However, schedule a few less 1-AA non-conference games to build up the strength of schedule component.

Ugh this is such a lame argument. So what if a SEC team plays one 1-AA team they STILL have a harder schedule even with that game so why the hell should it matter? Florida plays Georgia, FSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and LSU, but oooo they play WESTERN CAROLINA! Stop scheduling the easy games! Please. USC gets to feast on sucky Pac-10 teams every year and then play one or two tough non-conference games and the SEC is hurt because they play 5 or 6 really good teams but schedule two bad non-conference games. What a joke. Besides a game against a 1-AA team doesn't count towards the BCS so they're only playing a game against a 1-AA team if it's an extra 12th game so they still play as many 1-A teams as most teams.

Instead of Auburn playing Buffalo or LSU playing a bunch of directional schools, play an Indiana or a Kansas etc. I'm not saying go out and schedule Ohio State non-conference, but, considering the computers historically have injured the SEC when the national title race is close, why not play the scrubs of the good conference and that way at least you play teams that have strong S.O.S. but have relatively no chance to beat you.

Originally posted by redsoxnationNow, I think the SEC is the best conference year in and year out in College Football, at least for the last decade. However, schedule a few less 1-AA non-conference games to build up the strength of schedule component.

Ugh this is such a lame argument. So what if a SEC team plays one 1-AA team they STILL have a harder schedule even with that game so why the hell should it matter? Florida plays Georgia, FSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and LSU, but oooo they play WESTERN CAROLINA! Stop scheduling the easy games! Please. USC gets to feast on sucky Pac-10 teams every year and then play one or two tough non-conference games and the SEC is hurt because they play 5 or 6 really good teams but schedule two bad non-conference games. What a joke. Besides a game against a 1-AA team doesn't count towards the BCS so they're only playing a game against a 1-AA team if it's an extra 12th game so they still play as many 1-A teams as most teams.

I don't have a problem with SEC teams scheduling weak non-conference teams. They play eight tough conference games (unless they play Kentucky), so I believe they should not be criticized for putting an uber-cupcake or even two on the schedule, if only for the sake of getting some bench guys some PT before they get into conference play.

OTOH, anyone who schedules cupcakes has to know that if they get into a USC/OU/Auburn situation from a couple of years ago that their schedule is going to a big problem when they are trying to get themselvesinto the top-two. I'm sure in their wildest dreams Auburn wouldn't have expect that either (1) they would go undefeated through the SEC and (2) that two other teams would in the same year, but those are they breaks.

Obviously we all know a playoff would remedy this, anyway.

"You know what you need?Some new quotes in your sig.Yeah, I said it." -- DJFrostyFreeze

A playoff might get more SEC schools in but it in no way fixes the real problem...the polls themselves being used for game selection. If you say have an eight team playoff, how are you picking teams? If you do conference champs, then only one SEC team makes it and that's not fair. If you use the polls, you do several things:

1)You think teams 9-12 wouldn't just about sue the NCAA over being left out? You think they wouldn't have a HUGE arguement over being left out?

2)You make the other bowl games almost completely worthless. Right now they are already devalued besides the BCS games, now you're making them worth zero.

So the fight to be in the playoffs would be even worse than say what Auburn said when they got left out of the title game. At least they still got a major bowl and big payday. Teams 9-12 aren't getting squat and you will hear from them.

In other words, no a playoff doesn't fix anything because it still has to use polls and it's the polls that cause the controversy. Go back to what we used to have. Win the Pac 10 or Big Ten, go to the Rose Bowl. Acc champ goes to the Orange. Set in stone. So we don't get a "national title game". Didn't bother me before and was a lot better than what we have now. Then we'd go back to "wow it would have been neat to see those teams play" instead of "MY TEAM GOT SCREWED!"

Originally posted by redsoxnationInstead of Auburn playing Buffalo or LSU playing a bunch of directional schools, play an Indiana or a Kansas etc.

Well sorry but Auburn or LSU don't get to pick whoever they want to play. How do you know they haven't tried and played Kansas or Indiana? It's possible they asked and were told "fuck no, we don't want to play a team that good" It doesn't hurt Buffalo because they're Buffalo and they're happy with just getting the money the game would bring it. But for Kansas or Indiana, a team in a Major Conference, it would be embarassing to schedule a team that will probably beat them by 40 points.

I mean just look at what happened to the Pac-10 this year for scheduling SEC teams, most of them got embarassed and I don't think they'll be scheduling them again any time soon.

A playoff might get more SEC schools in but it in no way fixes the real problem...the polls themselves being used for game selection. If you say have an eight team playoff, how are you picking teams? If you do conference champs, then only one SEC team makes it and that's not fair. If you use the polls, you do several things:

1)You think teams 9-12 wouldn't just about sue the NCAA over being left out? You think they wouldn't have a HUGE arguement over being left out?

2)You make the other bowl games almost completely worthless. Right now they are already devalued besides the BCS games, now you're making them worth zero.

So the fight to be in the playoffs would be even worse than say what Auburn said when they got left out of the title game. At least they still got a major bowl and big payday. Teams 9-12 aren't getting squat and you will hear from them.

In other words, no a playoff doesn't fix anything because it still has to use polls and it's the polls that cause the controversy. Go back to what we used to have. Win the Pac 10 or Big Ten, go to the Rose Bowl. Acc champ goes to the Orange. Set in stone. So we don't get a "national title game". Didn't bother me before and was a lot better than what we have now. Then we'd go back to "wow it would have been neat to see those teams play" instead of "MY TEAM GOT SCREWED!"

I still trust the polls more than I do the computers. Now, I'd prefer a playoff. However, if there is no playoff, I'd much more enjoy the pre-Bowl Coalition/BCS anarchy where multiple bowl games could impact the national title. Having #1 play #5 in the Cotton Bowl while #2 plays # 3. Did #1 win convincingly enough to stay #1? Was #5's upset more impressive than #3's? I'd have no problem going back to those days over the current system where only 1 game matters and it is a week after New Year's Day.

Originally posted by wmatisticIf you use the polls, you do several things:

1)You think teams 9-12 wouldn't just about sue the NCAA over being left out? You think they wouldn't have a HUGE arguement over being left out?

2)You make the other bowl games almost completely worthless. Right now they are already devalued besides the BCS games, now you're making them worth zero.

Hey, nobody said that that all bowl games need to have any kind of value. Really - should the Fort Worth Bowl have value beyond the value it has to the teams playing in it? What about the Emerald Bowl? (etc.) I don't think a playoff would impact those bowls because:1)Nobody cares about 4/5ths of the bowl games anyway (except for a small group of diehards) and 2)Only a small amount of bowls have the history that would be strong enough to say "we should host a playoff game." To some extent, you don't really need to eliminate all the bowls to have a playoff. (Think of the other games as the NIT of college football.)

About the other point - I don't think the 9th-12th place teams would have an argument. Think about it - are there really 9-12 teams at the end of every season that have a legitimate claim to say, "we should play for the title?" It hasn't happened as far as I know; the most I've seen is 5, and normally you'll get 3-4. Could teams 9-12 run the table? Yeah, but it'd be akin to the George Mason run in the NCAA tourney this year. It can happen, but it's not very likely - and the team that won this year's NCAA tourney was one of the last unbeatens anyway. I don't see how that'd be an issue. Where I do see an issue (and you're going to have this wherever you cut a playoff off) is how you determine the 4, 8, 16 teams, etc.

I wouldn't object going back to the old system. I realize some pollsters seem pretty biased but I think it's still better than these computers that seem very off in some cases. I don't really care for a playoff either I just don't see how they can't add just one game if there's two undefeated teams.

As for the does #9 have any right to say they deserve a shot at the title. Well that's not the point. Maybe #9 doesn't have the right to say we deserve the title, but they might actually be better than #8, so why should #8 get a title shot either? I'd say the current #9, LSU, could beat anyone in the top 8.

Originally posted by QuezzyI wouldn't object going back to the old system. I realize some pollsters seem pretty biased but I think it's still better than these computers that seem very off in some cases. I don't really care for a playoff either I just don't see how they can't add just one game if there's two undefeated teams.

As for the does #9 have any right to say they deserve a shot at the title. Well that's not the point. Maybe #9 doesn't have the right to say we deserve the title, but they might actually be better than #8, so why should #8 get a title shot either? I'd say the current #9, LSU, could beat anyone in the top 8.

Exactly right. I think people don't realize that what they want gone is the crazy controversy over who's number one and don't stop to realize it's the polls that create it. Playoffs don't address the problem.

As to adding one game, I've tried to think about this. I mean sure you have years after the bowls are played with two or even on the rare occasion three teams left undefeated. Very rare to have three at that point. So maybe have a "Super" Bowl. Go back to the old ways, and then if two teams remain undefeated they play two weeks later in a Super Bowl. If three teams do, you don't use voting. You use strength of schedule, period. No other factor. It would make that Super Bowl a once every few years very special kind of event, and it's only done if two are undefeated. Multiple one loss teams means diddly. And on the off chance a third team is left out due to SOS they wouldn't have any bias playing into it and could only blame their own schedule.

It's not perfect, but if people have to have that final matchup I could be ok with this. I go back and forth on it, because it encourages teams to try and not lose any game and thus schedule cupcakes, but at the same time the SOS could come into play so they have to maybe play at least one tough OOC game. I dunno. Tough call, but at least we can agree the old way was better than the BCS.

Originally posted by wmatisticI think people don't realize that what they want gone is the crazy controversy over who's number one and don't stop to realize it's the polls that create it. Playoffs don't address the problem.

*bangs head against desk*

There is a men's college basketball poll. There is a men's basketball national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a women's college basketball poll. There is a women's basketball national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a men's college ice hockey poll. There is a men's ice hockey national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a women's college soccer poll. There is a women's soccer national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a DIVISION I-AA FOOTBALL poll. There is a DIVISION I-AA FOOTBALL national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

(I could go on.)

I'll tell you what. If you can find me one, ONE, documented occurrence of Duke or UConn or anyone trying to claim that THEY, not Florida, are the TRUE National Champions of men's basketball, I'll admit that you are right and I am wrong. Please. Find it. Show me the stories of lawsuits by teams that were left out of any particular tournament because they thought they deserved to be in it.

EDIT: In the interest of brevity, you can go through the last time Wade and I argued about this here: http://the-w.com/thread.php/id=27402. He didn't give me any facts or anything based on truth THEN, either.

(edited by JayJayDean on 6.10.06 1520)"You know what you need?Some new quotes in your sig.Yeah, I said it." -- DJFrostyFreeze

As fun as it may be to debate, I am convinced that there will not be a playoff in the foreseeable future. The people that matter don't want one (and it has nothing to do with student interests, but everything to do with who controls the money), so there will not be one. The only possibility I could see is "plus one" type thing since they could do that within the current framework. Of course, that is no real solution, as there will be some years 3 or more teams will be deserving even after all the bowls are played, and then there will be some years where the is one team that is so clearly #1 that you wonder why they have to play the extra game.

The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.

Originally posted by wmatisticI think people don't realize that what they want gone is the crazy controversy over who's number one and don't stop to realize it's the polls that create it. Playoffs don't address the problem.

*bangs head against desk*

There is a men's college basketball poll. There is a men's basketball national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a women's college basketball poll. There is a women's basketball national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a men's college ice hockey poll. There is a men's ice hockey national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a women's college soccer poll. There is a women's soccer national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a DIVISION I-AA FOOTBALL poll. There is a DIVISION I-AA FOOTBALL national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

(I could go on.)

I'll tell you what. If you can find me one, ONE, documented occurrence of Duke or UConn or anyone trying to claim that THEY, not Florida, are the TRUE National Champions of men's basketball, I'll admit that you are right and I am wrong. Please. Find it. Show me the stories of lawsuits by teams that were left out of any particular tournament because they thought they deserved to be in it.

EDIT: In the interest of brevity, you can go through the last time Wade and I argued about this here: http://the-w.com/?thread.php/?id=27402. He didn't give me any facts or anything based on truth THEN, either.

(edited by JayJayDean on 6.10.06 1520)

The operative word in these sentences is "a." There is a college basketball national champ. There are, however, two college football national champs. What happens when a three- or four-loss team wins a weak conference, gets hot and wins this playoff, and the AP decides it wants to vote for a one-loss team as champ instead? You still have a split title; you still have the controversy.

At the end of the day, the college basketball polls are absolutely meaningless. In football, those polls are everything. That is what has to change, if anything. Personally, I'm firmly in the "nothing needs to change" camp.

Originally posted by wmatisticI think people don't realize that what they want gone is the crazy controversy over who's number one and don't stop to realize it's the polls that create it. Playoffs don't address the problem.

*bangs head against desk*

There is a men's college basketball poll. There is a men's basketball national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a women's college basketball poll. There is a women's basketball national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a men's college ice hockey poll. There is a men's ice hockey national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a women's college soccer poll. There is a women's soccer national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

There is a DIVISION I-AA FOOTBALL poll. There is a DIVISION I-AA FOOTBALL national champion. The two are not related in any way. The poll is not used to seed the teams. The poll is not used to choose which teams play and which teams don't. Teams are placed by a selection committee into a bracket and they play each other in a single elimination format until one team remains, at which point that team is crowned the national champion.

(I could go on.)

I'll tell you what. If you can find me one, ONE, documented occurrence of Duke or UConn or anyone trying to claim that THEY, not Florida, are the TRUE National Champions of men's basketball, I'll admit that you are right and I am wrong. Please. Find it. Show me the stories of lawsuits by teams that were left out of any particular tournament because they thought they deserved to be in it.

EDIT: In the interest of brevity, you can go through the last time Wade and I argued about this here: http://the-w.com/?thread.php/?id=27402. He didn't give me any facts or anything based on truth THEN, either.

(edited by JayJayDean on 6.10.06 1520)

The operative word in these sentences is "a." There is a college basketball national champ. There are, however, two college football national champs. What happens when a three- or four-loss team wins a weak conference, gets hot and wins this playoff, and the AP decides it wants to vote for a one-loss team as champ instead? You still have a split title; you still have the controversy.

At the end of the day, the college basketball polls are absolutely meaningless. In football, those polls are everything. That is what has to change, if anything. Personally, I'm firmly in the "nothing needs to change" camp.

If the AP wanted to, they could vote for the loser of the title game in college basketball as the #1 team after the Tourney. They have never done it, but if a school that went 8-20 during the regular season got hot, won their conference title tourney and then the NCAA Tourney as a 16 seed to finish at 18-20, what would stop the AP from voting someone who was 38-0 and slipped up champion? Of course, with the Tourney, no one actually pays attention to the AP or Coaches Poll afterwards, as there is an officially recognized NCAA Title presented to the winner of the Tournament. The polls don't decide who gets spots or seeding in other tournaments, tournament committees do, so why would the NCAA be beholden to the polls for a football tournament?

Originally posted by TheBucsFanThe operative word in these sentences is "a." There is a college basketball national champ. There are, however, two college football national champs. What happens when a three- or four-loss team wins a weak conference, gets hot and wins this playoff, and the AP decides it wants to vote for a one-loss team as champ instead?

That would never, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER...EVER, EVER, happen. As far as I could tell with a quick Google search, the AP doesn't even do a poll after the basketball tournament, and if they did, so what? They hand out an official NCAA trophy at the end of the tournament. Official. NCAA. Champions. Even if you found me a poll that said Duke or UConn was the national champion of men's basketball last year, would you pay it any attention for even one second? No.

Nobody thought Syracuse was the "best" team the year they won the title. Nobody thought Florida was the "best" team the year they won the title.Nobody (except Shapiro) thought the Steelers were the "best" team last year.

In none of those cases, NONE, does anyone dispute those teams are/were CHAMPIONS. Why? Because they won the playoffs, that's why. No one has tried to say the Colts should be the NFL champs or the Pistons should be the NBA champs, because those teams didn't win in the playoffs. Period. So don't try and tell me that there would be some controversy over who is the champion of you took 16 or 20 or 24 teams, put 'em in a bracket and had them play until there is a winner, because THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.

You and Wade try and talk like me and RSN and Zeruel and every other playoff advocate is thinking way outside the box in some crazy world. We just want to see the champion deteremined on the field, like it is at just about every other level in just about every other sport in the world. The model is there, heck, the NCAA uses that model for EVERY OTHER SPORT.

It's fine if you don't want to change the system, but don't tell me that a playoff system wouldn't be a MASSIVE improvement. The way college football chooses its national champion isn't "good", it's "different". I'll accept that you wouldn't want to change it because it is "different" and that's why you like it, but don't tell me that you don't want them to change it because it's "good".

"You know what you need?Some new quotes in your sig.Yeah, I said it." -- DJFrostyFreeze